Let’s review the Darwinian fairytale about the putative human and chimp common ancestor. We begin with the definition for natural selection from 2 renowned evolutionary scientists, and then compare the theories for how humans acquired our bipedalism to these definitions.
Futuyma: Natural selection is the process by which species adapt to their environment. Natural selection leads to evolutionary change when individuals with certain characteristics have a greater survival or reproductive rate than other individuals in a population and pass on these inheritable genetic characteristics to their offspring. Simply put, natural selection is a consistent difference in survival and reproduction between different genotypes, or even different genes, in what we could call reproductive success. ActionBioscience.org
In this Beliefnet interview with Richard Dawkins,
You said in a recent speech that design was not the only alternative to chance. A lot of people think that evolution is all about random chance.
That’s ludicrous. That’s ridiculous. Mutation is random in the sense that it’s not anticipatory of what’s needed. Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don’t survive. That’s a non-random process.
There is no disagreement that bipedalism marks a major difference, between humans from our putative quadrupedal Darwinian cousins. According to the Darwinian fairytale, the only reason that bipedal transformation happened was that it must have conferred some survival advantage. Let’s review these contrived advantages and ask a few simple questions. The
Darwinian just so story theory of evolution for bipedalism goes like this. We need to keep in mind that even the Darwinian stories are deliberately ambiguous, inconclusive and unfalsifiable.
storytellers scientists contends that shrinking food supply and differing sub-Saharan environments separated the common ancestors of chimps and humans causing humans to evolve bipedal locomotion. Question: Did the food supply shrink instantaneously? Did the change in environment change instantaneously? Why would the putative common ancestors become isolated? Why not stay in an area where food was more plentiful? There is absolutely no empirical evidence to support such a just so beginning.
The fairytale continues with predatory pressure to drive the evolution of bipedalism. The story goes that some of our common ancestors venture into food rich environments and retreating. Over long periods maybe hundreds of thousands of years, this behavior cause the primate to develop bipedal tendency. Question: According to Darwinian differential survival, with such differing environment shouldn’t the individuals who venture into the rich grassland have a survival advantage over the individuals that stayed in the arid desert? If the Darwinian common ancestors can survive in the arid desert, then why would there be a need to venture into the grassland? On the other hand, if the grassland did confer a survival advantage then why didn’t they all migrate into the grassland? In either case divergence of the species shouldn’t have occurred.
Then there is the story that bipedalism evolved to avoid heat from the savanna sun. Or maybe it was a result of standing to reach for food. Question: If standing upright creates a survival advantage then why doesn’t all animals living on the savanna evolve bipedalism? If other animals can evolve a tolerance to heat without bipedal evolution, why did the primates evolve the same trait? After all natural selection is non-random.
However, if you don’t like any of these stories, how about the food for sex theory. According to an anatomist Lovejoy, males needed to carry food and bring it back for the female to relieve her of the burden of nursing, making the female available for copulation. Question: It is obvious that such transformation must have taken hundreds of thousands or millions of years. In all that time, it never occurred to these smart apes to migrate closer to the food source? How far do you think they need to travel to forage food after a million years?
As usual, Darwinians are good at adamant assertions but when you get down to the details of their stories, their credulity falls apart. The Darwinian motto is beat it until it fits, because things only makes sense in light of evolution. With this kind of objectivity, the Darwinian evolutionists are still living in the scientific Stone Age.
See the related essay on convergent evolution for further challenges to Darwinian evolution.